Case Details: Dooars Construction Company Versus Union of India (2025) 32 Centax 93 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
- S/Shri Vinay Shraff, (VC), Himangshu Kumar Ray & Abhilash Mittal, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Ratan Banik & Bishwaraj Agarwal, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners, in their capacity as assessees, approached the High Court challenging a demand raised under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of services rendered to a government, local authority, or governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, and related activities. It was submitted that the show cause notice forming the basis of the demand was barred by limitation, and therefore, the entire demand was unenforceable. The petitioners sought a stay of the operation of the impugned demand during the pendency of proceedings. The jurisdictional authority, however, contended that in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the petitioners could not be granted an unconditional or blanket stay of demand enforcement. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Held
The Calcutta High Court held that while the issue of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, remained to be adjudicated, the petitioners could not be allowed to enjoy an absolute stay against the demand solely on that basis. Applying the provisions of Section 35F(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the court directed that the petitioners shall deposit five per cent of the disputed service tax amount with the appropriate authorities as a condition for stay of recovery proceedings.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Surya Vistacom Pvt. Ltd. — 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 290 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 [Para 1]
